Lawyers Cannot Strike: Supreme Court Affirms Duty to Attend Court
District Bar Association, Dehradun vs Ishwar Shandilya & Ors.
Listen to this judgment
• 4 min readKey Takeaways
• A court cannot condone strikes by lawyers as it obstructs access to justice.
• Lawyers have no right to strike or boycott court proceedings, even for grievances.
• Strikes by advocates can lead to contempt of court and disciplinary action.
• Bar Councils must ensure that lawyers adhere to professional conduct and etiquette.
• Access to speedy justice is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling regarding the conduct of lawyers, emphasizing that they do not possess the right to strike or boycott court proceedings. This decision arose from a Special Leave Petition filed by the District Bar Association of Dehradun against a High Court order that directed local Bar Associations to cease strikes and ensure attendance in courts on all working Saturdays. The ruling reinforces the legal obligation of advocates to facilitate access to justice and maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
Case Background
The case originated from a writ petition filed by Ishwar Shandilya and others in the High Court of Uttarakhand, challenging the frequent strikes by lawyers in the Dehradun, Haridwar, and Udham Singh Nagar districts. The High Court noted that lawyers had been boycotting courts on Saturdays for over 35 years, significantly obstructing access to justice for litigants. The High Court's order mandated that Bar Associations withdraw their strike calls and ensure attendance in courts, highlighting the detrimental impact of such strikes on the judicial process.
What The Lower Authorities Held
The High Court's decision was based on the observation that the strikes had led to a substantial loss of working days in the courts, contributing to the backlog of cases. The court directed the Bar Associations to refrain from strikes and emphasized the need for the Bar Council of India to take disciplinary action against those advocating for such boycotts. The High Court's ruling aimed to restore normalcy in court operations and uphold the rule of law.
The Court's Reasoning
In its judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, asserting that the right to strike cannot be exercised at the expense of the justice delivery system. The Court reiterated that lawyers are officers of the court and have a duty to ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial process. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, which established that lawyers do not have the right to strike or boycott court proceedings. The Court emphasized that strikes disrupt the administration of justice and undermine the rights of litigants.
Statutory Interpretation
The Supreme Court's ruling draws upon the provisions of the Advocates Act, particularly Section 48, which provides certain protections to advocates acting in good faith. However, the Court clarified that this protection does not extend to actions that obstruct court proceedings. The Court also highlighted the role of Bar Councils in maintaining professional standards and ensuring that advocates adhere to their duties.
Constitutional or Policy Context
The ruling is situated within the broader context of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which encompass the right to speedy justice. The Court noted that frequent strikes by lawyers violate these rights and contribute to delays in the judicial process. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal profession's responsibility to prioritize the interests of justice over personal grievances.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reinforces the principle that access to justice is paramount and cannot be compromised by the actions of legal professionals. Secondly, it clarifies the legal standing of strikes within the legal profession, establishing that such actions are not only unprofessional but also contemptuous. Finally, the judgment calls upon Bar Councils to take proactive measures to prevent strikes and uphold the dignity of the legal profession.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the District Bar Association of Dehradun, affirming the High Court's directions. The Court mandated compliance with the order and warned of serious consequences for any breaches, including potential contempt proceedings.
Case Details
- Case Title: District Bar Association, Dehradun vs Ishwar Shandilya & Ors.
- Citation: 2020 INSC 237
- Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- Bench: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M. R. Shah
- Date of Judgment: 2020-02-28